COMPLAINT FILED: 25.06.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> 30th AUGUST 2008<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SRI. SYED USMAN RAZVI MEMBER <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 1409/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Tribhuvan Singh,<br /> #28, 1st Main, Temple Street,<br /> RMV 2nd Stage, Ashwathnagar,<br /> P.0.-Sanjaynagar,<br /> Bangalore – 560 094.<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY Orange Woods,<br /> Corporate Office: No. 405/406,<br /> 4th Floor, Prestige Meredian 2,<br /> M.G. Road,<br /> Bangalore – 560 001.<br /> <br /> <br /> Advocate (K. Suman)<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant to direct the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to deliver the furniture as promised and booked or refund the cost of the same and pay a compensation on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> Complainant booked the furniture with the OP on 06th May 2008 by paying an amount of Rs.34,800/- which includes sofa set, TV wall unit, dining table, centre table, king size cot, etc. OP promised to deliver the said furniture within 20 days, thereafter somehow OP went on postponing the delivery of the said furniture on one or the other pre-text. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant, went in futile. Thus complainant felt unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service on the part of the OP. For no fault of his, he was made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP they kept ready the furniture for delivery, but complainant did not approach them in time and took delivery of the same. The other allegations are baseless. If the complainant is not ready to take delivery of the said furniture, they are even ready to refund the cost of the furniture without interest. There is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the OP. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the reliefs now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant has booked the furniture with the OP on 06th May 2008 by paying an amount of Rs.34,800/-, OP acknowledged the receipt of the said amount. According to the complainant OP promised to deliver the said furniture within 3 weeks from the date of booking. Complainant patiently waited, but somehow OP one or the other pre-text went on postponing the delivery of the said furniture inspite of the repeated requests and demands made by the complainant. Complainant waited up to 16th June 2008, but it went in futile. The evidence of the complainant appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard the sworn testimony of the complainant. It is the quality of evidence that is more important than that of the quantity.<br /> <br /> 7. As against this it is contended by the OP that they kept ready furniture for delivery, but complainant failed to take delivery of the same. We do not find force in the defence. As per the advertisement given by the OP with regard to the sale of the furniture from there showroom published in Times of India which is incumbent upon the OP to deliver the goods when it receives the orders and received the cost of the entire furniture items. The non-delivery of the said furniture in time, in our view amounts to deficiency in service. Complainant invested his hard earned money to get the said furniture in time, but unfortunately he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment because of the hostile attitude of the OP. OP having retained the said huge amount since 6th May 2008 without delivering the furniture accrued the wrongful gain to itself, thereby caused the wrongful loss to the complainant, that too for no fault of his. Complainant is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances he is entitled for the relief of refund of the cost of the furniture paid by him with interest and also the litigation cost. <br /> <br /> 8. As against the unimpeachable evidence of the complainant, the defence set out by the OP appears to be defence for defence sake. As already observed by us, there is nothing to discard the sworn testimony of the complainant. OP otherwise admitted the fact of non-delivery of the same in time. If really OP kept ready the said furniture, they would have communicated in that regard and would have asked to take delivery of the same. But no such steps are taken. Under the circumstances we do not find force in the defence of the OP. There is a proof of deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice. Hence the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to refund Rs.34,800/- together with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 06th May 2008 till realization and pay a compensation of Rs.1,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant. This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of its communication.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 30th day of August 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />